Saturday, April 20, 2013

Maybe someone with a stronger science
background can help me out here. This article seems to support what
advocates of Intelligent Design have been saying all along, i.e. that
even the simplest forms of life are WAY to complex to have evolved
in the 4.5 billion years of earth's supposed history. These
geneticists, therefore, propose that life began 10 billion years ago
somewhere else in the universe (where, conveniently, the origin of life
can't be studied).

Aside from the fact that this, IMHO, takes much more
faith than belief in God, is it really plausible to believe that life
began that soon after the big bang? As I understand it, according to
standard Big Bang theory, stars were just beginning to form 10 billion
years ago.

2 comments:

But how can you argue? We're talking SCIENCE. You read it on the INTERNET for crying out loud. It HAS to be true.

I'm the worst Christian that ever walked the face of the earth. I have complete disdain for even my friends who blindly believe every article that shows 'scientifically' how life began with cute drawings of little cave families. Instead of loving these people and trying to speak the truth in love, I call them fools and idiots which of course they believe me to be. Thanks for the blog.the bixkitboy, BCS Mexico

Just as it would be foolish to believe everything on the internet, it is also foolish to discard everything just because it is on the internet. In this case, the news article linked to the actual scientific report hosted on the Cornell University Library website.

About Me

I am a library director, Bible professor, and ordained pastor with masters' degrees in library science and theological studies, and a doctor of philosophy in religion and society. This blog contains some of my articles, essays and posts.